Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc CountyAurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County
VS
McKessonMcKesson
Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

5000 Memorial Dr, Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 54241, US

Last Update: 22/04/2026

View Profile

Aurora Medical Center - Manitowoc County features state-of-the-art facilities and patient rooms with views of the surrounding gardens or lake. Thank you for participating and engaging with Aurora Health Care on social media. Comments and engagement on our social media...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:25
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
McKesson

McKesson

6555 State Highway 161, Irving, 75039, US

Last Update: 10/09/2026

View Profile

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page for McKesson Corporation. Our purpose is Advancing Health Outcomes for All®. Guided by a nearly 200-year legacy, we work with biopharma companies, providers, pharmacies, manufacturers, government entities and others to strengthen ...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:25,352
Subsidiaries:11
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
McKesson

McKesson

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

McKesson has 96.08% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - McKesson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

McKesson cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
McKesson

McKesson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SALMCK1787948754
🔒 Incident : Breach
MCK1789021407
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MCK1788385186

FAQ

Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County company and McKesson company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County and McKesson, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County and McKesson, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County or McKesson ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County or McKesson ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County and McKesson, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Aurora Medical Center – Manitowoc County and McKesson, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8